The Tasmanian Greens today condemned the start of the annual forestry industry high intensity burn-off regime, saying the burns emit pollutants into the air causing distress to the many Tasmanians suffering from respiratory complaints, and also impacting on Tasmania’s clean, green and clever brand.

Greens Health spokesperson Paul ‘Basil’ O’Halloran MP said that these industrial high intensity burns, which are a stark contrast to the cool burns employed for fuel reduction purposes, are outdated, old-school and not in line with appropriate modern practice.

Greens Member for Lyons Tim Morris MP also tabled in the Parliament a petition signed by 60 constituents, calling for action to be taken to prohibit Forestry Tasmania, its agents, associates and contractors, and the forest industry in Tasmania from continuing the high intensity burns, citing health and climate change concerns.

“Once again Tasmania’s beautiful autumn days are blighted by the dense smoke plumes blocking out the sun and choking our air, due to these industrial ‘hot’ so-called regeneration burns,” Mr O’Halloran said.

“This is an unacceptable situation. It compromises Tasmanians’ health, our environment, and is an insult to common-sense.”

“Members of the public are contacting our offices around the state angry, concerned and disbelieving that one industry can subject this upon the island, while other people are lodging their protest by signing petitions.”

“It is well-documented the negative impact these high intensity urn-offs are having on other industries such as local wineries. Our tourism industry also has reason for concern over this due to the polluting plumes of smoke that choke up the air and ‘steal the sun’. ”

“The due date of these dangerous, polluting ‘hot’ burns offs just for the economic benefit of one industry has long expired. The Minister needs to consult with the community to establish a timeframe by which this archaic practice will end once and for all.”

Mr O’Halloran again reiterated the Greens’ long-held policy position supporting the ‘cool burning regimes’ of fuel reduction burns undertaken for public safety reasons, as differentiated to the dangerous industrial high intensity burn-offs employed to meet the economic requirements of one industry.

If Tasmanian forestry had a redeeming quality, the autumn burns would still be an outrage. It’s a triple bottom line disaster.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 09/04/13 at 05:47 PM

Forestry has no bottom line John.

Posted by Andrew Ricketts on 09/04/13 at 07:44 PM

Where is the (independent) “well documented evidence” that burnoffs are affecting “local wineries” or other industries? And why shouldn’t the forest industry be allowed to take measures to protect its own interests and resource- even allowing that the Greens don’t want a ‘forest industry’-just forests!

Posted by TGC on 09/04/13 at 09:01 PM

So who is the person or persons that announced “let the burns begin’ for this year of 2013?
Would it be the ‘know next to nothing’ directors of this loss making GBE destruct-or, or could it have been given its annual thumbs-up by no-body’s mate CEO Bob Gordon, (Forestry Tasmania’s very own highly remunerated stumbling-block) or was this simply commenced by somebody who works on a contract basis and is paid to set fire to some large portion of our State’s Forests each year?
Quite possibly the latter, so that the coots in suits all can say, ‘oh, it’s nothing to do with me,’ (or us) ‘it must be somebody else who plans and decides this sort of thing.’
In my 11th year now living in Tasmania nothing much has changed from 2002, other than most all of the Native Forest timber carnage is ultimately shipped off to some Asian port, or otherwise discounted to buggery and zipped off to China. (Instead of going into the former now bankrupted Gunns Ltd gargantuan maws, simply for breaking down into their bastard wood-chips.)
Otherwise it’s still business as usual for this huddle of loser logging Ancient Native Forest destroying hucksters swinging from the umbilical cord to which has its other end attached to the host body known as the taxpayer-funded rogue outfit of Forestry Tasmania.

Posted by William Boeder on 10/04/13 at 02:43 AM

Absolute nonsense, regeneration burns are essential to create the next generation of eucalypt forests, every fool knows that.
Burn and burn hard now while weather conditions are favourble.

Posted by Robin Halton on 10/04/13 at 09:50 AM

I think you just dunked yourself in the mire RH, as in “Absolute nonsense, regeneration burns are essential to create the next generation of eucalypt forests, every fool knows that.”

Exactly!

Posted by John Wade on 10/04/13 at 01:00 PM

TGC and Robin Halton you are both so narrow minded! The issues here are health and air quality. Today I have made a incident complaint to the EPA - why? Because I was riding my bicycle up to the Smithton Hospital to do my morning round and I was coughing and choking on smoke! I am exceptionally fit and healthy, but like anyone else, the burnoff smog is bad for my lungs, even doing low level activity! How asthmatics, frail elderly, and people with chronic disease manage on a morning like today became quite apparent with the complaints voiced to nurses and doctors at our surgery. When I checked the burnoff page from Foresty Tasmania - there it was - 5 possible high intensity burns to the east and south of Circular Head obviously the cause of the disgraceful air quality in Circular Head this morning, with a mild southerly breeze, hardly ‘favorable’ weather conditions if the smoke is blown to a population area known for its high density of chronic disease.
This is not a political rant, doctors and health professionals like myself support the Greens on this issue because it is endangering peoples health and lives. We have just seen the first flu cases present, the asthmatics start to destabilise now due to the change to cooler night temperatures, what we dont need is Forestry causing further danger to peoples health, then justifying it because its good for their buisness. Public Health must take priority over polluting and outdated industries so good on the Greens for fighting this. They have my full support on this issue.
Dr Nicole Anderson
GP, Smithton

Posted by Nicole Anderson on 10/04/13 at 01:08 PM

Nice one John at number 6. Only a fool knows that re-gen burns are necessary.
Number 3, what about the interests of the rest of the state and I thought they were our resources too, not Forestry Tasmania’?

Robin needs to qualify his remarks by admitting that re-gen burns are only required to promote even-aged, eucalypt heavy (near monoculture)regrowth, that bares little resemblance(though looking quite nice if left long enough) to natural, native wet eucalypt forest senescing into rainforest or reverting to non-even aged, mixed species wet eucalypt (mixed understorey) forest resulting from cooler wildfire burns and natural attrition.
Hence this ‘need’ for re-gen burns is a financial, ‘productivity’ or ‘maximum output’ based need and not a biological tree growth need.

Old stalwarts like Robin need to realise that the reason more reserves are being called for is because FT is untrusted and their practices are so rapacious. If they were more sustainable, its doubtful ENGO drive for more reserves would be so strong. Please stop telling lies that Greens want no forestry industry at all. This is not true.

Posted by Sue DeNim on 10/04/13 at 04:20 PM

Meanwhile- in Victoria…

Posted by TGC on 10/04/13 at 04:21 PM

Typical of #3 & 5 to jump in with their bias opinions, trying to turn a negative into a positive. Get into this century, and try worrying about other people’s health for a change and not eucalypt trees!
Looking east,south and west yesterday in L’ton there was heavy smoke haze. Basil Fitch

“Air pollution is an underestimated scourge that kills far more people than AIDS and malaria and a shift to cleaner energy could easily halve the toll by 2030, U.N. officials say.

OSLO (Reuters) - Air pollution is an underestimated scourge that kills far more people than AIDS and malaria and a shift to cleaner energy could easily halve the toll by 2030, U.N. officials said on Tuesday.

Investments in solar, wind or hydropower would benefit both human health and a drive by almost 200 nations to slow climate change, blamed mainly on a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from use of fossil fuels, they said.

“Air pollution is causing more deaths than HIV or malaria combined,” Kandeh Yumkella, director general of the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, told a conference in Oslo trying to work out new U.N. development goals for 2030.
Most victims from indoor pollution, caused by wood fires and primitive stoves in developing nations, were women and children.
He suggested that new U.N. energy goals for 2030 should include halving the number of premature deaths caused by indoor and outdoor pollution.
A 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) study found that 3.5 million people die early annually from indoor air pollution and 3.3 million from outdoor air pollution. Toxic particles shorten lives by causing diseases such as pneumonia or cancer.

“The problem has been underestimated in the past,” Maria Neira, the WHO’s director of public health and environment, told Reuters. Smog is an acute problem from Beijing to Mexico City…...”

Posted by Alison Bleaney on 10/04/13 at 05:34 PM

How selfish of some people to put their own health ahead of the massive profits which Forestry Tasmania brings in, to finance our wonderful hospitals and the EPA, which look after everyone’s health.

Posted by Justa Bloke on 10/04/13 at 05:36 PM

Temperature inversion during smoke pollution after fires causes increased exposure to damaging air pollution (as well as increased exposure to pesticide spray drift)- this is not rocket science!

THE VICTORIAN DPI is warning grain growers of temperature inversions causing spray drift when spraying at night.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) warns that there is a potential for temperature inversions to occur between sunset and up to two hours after sunrise.

Vic DPI chemical standards officer Neil Harrison said fine droplets of pesticides can concentrate at relatively high levels under an inversion layer and stay suspended for several hours in the atmosphere, not being influenced by gravity.

“Inversions can slowly follow the topography of the landscape down slope due to the cold air drainage effect creating a risk that any suspended particles will be carried off target,” he said.

“They can settle out potentially kilometres from the target and may impact upon susceptible non-target species causing significant damage.”

An inversion can be formed when the overnight cooling effect of the earth’s surface causes the air immediately adjacent to the ground to also cool and subsequently the air is cooler near the ground and then warms up as height increases.
Dr Alison Bleaney

Posted by Alison Bleaney on 10/04/13 at 05:42 PM

Further to my previous post, discussion with the EPA today confirmed that the air quality at Smithton between 0800 and 0930 had particulate levels at 100mcg/m3. The upper limit for the national standard is 25mcg/m3 - I was informed that above this limit for over an hour would expect to cause exacerbation in people with respiratory problems, therefore is a public health concern. The EPA representative told me they had been watching the monitoring levels overnight and had been concerned there would be problems, particularly as the levels rose to 100mcg/m3. I am not a respiratory physician, however clearly this degree of air pollution caused by a ‘private’ industry requires investigation and rectification.
Dr Nicole Anderson
GP, Smithton

Posted by Nicole Anderson on 10/04/13 at 06:06 PM

#7 Dr Nichole Anderson if you vote Green of cause you are basically anti forestry anyway, that’s why you are making a noise. Too bad, you cant be very fit either!
I spent over 30 years working in smokey conditions, as did many of my co workers I am not aware anyone suffering from or passed away as a direct result of forest smoke inhallation.

I worked in the Burnie- Wynyard/ West Coast area for many years with forestry with the current Mayor of Wynyard Robert Walsh. As a team of Tech foresters, field supervisors,works gang and clearing/ roading contractors we had open communications publically and among ourselves leading up to late summer /autumn burning.
FT was always approachable, it was treated as “the talk about town”, burns were broadcasted on local radio regularly, on TV in later years. Known sufferers or their relatives if they requested to be contacted, that was no problem for our office staff on the day(s) of or leading up to burning ref “Neighbour Notification List” as a part of any approved FT Burning Plan.
Sufferers, mainly elderly folk had their own annual health management plan with the help of frieds or relatives.
I can recall the complaints about smoke always virtually without exception came from healthy people with imaginary ailments who hated forestry practices and supported Green mantra.
For gods sake Nichole, I dont know where you are from but we have bushfires too you you complain about those too.
I’ll sort of ease you into the situation, smoke stench from slow burning heaps of radiata pine is a lot worse than from burning eucalypt.
Unfortunally FT cannot control the weather condition re wind direction some time after the burns are lit. Generally as a rule the smoking out of populations is to be avoided.

It seems to me that the modern generation are not work hardened (less the persons with genuine illnesses) most of the problem is that many spend their life behind a screen, rush to a gym or tear arse around on a bike. Of cause they are not fit. The answer is steady, constant exercise, a job and abundant Tasmanian fresh air.

Posted by Robin Halton on 10/04/13 at 07:04 PM

5 # Robin. Burning the clear felled forest to regenerate the next generation of eucalypt forest is an absurdity. In 90 years if left undisturbed this regenerated forest will possibly produce some immature eucalypt saw logs but no speciality timbers. 200 to 400 years is the minimum time to regenerate any sort of mixed forest. 210 years ago the first tree in Tasmania was felled for a house, all ready we are scratching to find enough first class timber. I would have thought by now even a fool would have realised that the present forestry practices are unsustainable. What is the point of chopping down a forest, destroying people’s health by burning the residue and regenerating a forest that no one alive today will ever cut one sawlog from.

Posted by max on 10/04/13 at 11:21 PM

Well said those against this deliberate pernicious smoke.
Thank you from one of the many asthmatics who are affected severely every year by this dirty, stinking, unnecessary, out-dated, burning practice!

It is all spin from some in FT and brainwashing from some who worked in FT….right Robin C. Halton ex FT Sen Tech Forester , 31 yrs service?

• COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S., taking one life every
four minutes.
• Women are at increasingly high risk for COPD, as the death rate is growing faster among women with COPD than men. • Approximately half of people who have COPD don’t know it and remain undiagnosed (12 million).
Only 7% is from tobacco smoke. 93% from wood smoke, coal smoke and other air pollution.
• COPD is the only leading cause of death that is increasing in prevalence.
• COPD kills more people each year than breast cancer and diabetes combined.
• COPD accounts for more than $40 billion in total health care costs to the nation.

Posted by M Meadows on 11/04/13 at 03:40 AM

Lung Cancer is the most prevalent, hardest to detect early and most difficult to treat. It has the shortest cancer survival time.

Breathing wood smoke from burning one small stick of dry firewood as cleanly as possible in a modern efficient wood stove is the same as breathing smoke from 27 cigarettes. Outdoor wood burning is exponentially worse!

Tobacco use has decreased dramatically yet lung cancer is the number one killer of all types of cancer. .

It is the number 2 cause of death from all diseases.

It kills more women then breast and cervical cancer combined. It costs billions of dollars in medical costs yearly! We ALL pay for cancer with increased medical costs and insurance premiums.

Posted by Jeff on 11/04/13 at 03:56 AM

Ok I will ask the dumb question. How do you burn a gravel road? They seem to regenerate very well in areas managed by FT. any one ever noticed?.

Posted by Bruce on 11/04/13 at 07:29 AM

#8 As I have explained before, what you have said is wrong with regard to the need to burn to create regeneration, wrong in every respect of wet eucalypt ecology. You obviously aren’t interetsed in learning the truth but simply wish to say anything (blatent bullshit) to push your own cause. As I have said before, you or no one else has come up with any evidence to suggest that burning is not required to produce adequate regen, no evidence whatsoever. I’m not here in response to smoke issues, just shaking my head in dis-belief.

Posted by Stu on 11/04/13 at 09:26 AM

#15 your comment suggests that despite your many years inhaling pollutants without self recognisable health detriment, you are wilfully ignorant of the decades of objective health data presented in these other posts. Kudos to you for following a healthy outdoor lifestyle, i wish many more did or could, and encourage my community to do just that. However the defamatory tone of your post makes the arguement for the company you represent all the more irrelevant to the many required “to spend their life behind a screen” because that is what their job requires. Tarring all with a documented, empirical public health concern with the same ‘anti forestry’ brush is rather callous and belies the fact that many health and environmental protest action has firm roots in dispassionate scientific research, distant from the conflict of business interests fouling the opinion.

Posted by Dr Nicole Anderson on 11/04/13 at 09:58 AM

Real Time Air Quality Data for Tasmania is shown on the EPA website here:

Yesterday’s data from the Smithton BLANkET station (10 April) shows that PM2.5 and PM10 particle emissions averaged 19 and 30 respectively over a 24 hour period but both peaked at well over 200 around 9.00am.

The EPA website includes the following description of air quality standards but in my opinion there is no justification for the carrying out of high intensity forestry “regeneration” burns.

What are the national standards for PM10 and PM2.5?

The National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (known as the Air NEPM) stipulates air quality standards in Australia. For PM10 there is a 24-hour standard of 50 µg m-3 (50 millionth of a gram per cubic metre). That is, if PM10 levels measured by a reference instrument, averaged over 24 hours, exceeds 50 µg m-3, an exceedence of the standard is recorded. The Air NEPM also stipulates that the reporting interval is the calendar day (midnight to midnight). For PM2.5, an advisory 24-hour reporting limit is set at 25 µg m-3. It is likely that this reporting limit will become a national standard in the future.

Currently there are no air quality standards for PM10 or PM2.5 for intervals shorter than 24-hours. That is, if PM10 levels exceed 50 µg m-3 for only one or two hours, but for the rest of the 24-hour interval PM10 levels are low so the day-average is below 50 µg m-3, then an exceedence would not be recorded. There is significant interest both in Australia and overseas in specifying PM10 and PM2.5 standards for intervals shorter than 24-hours. Such standards may be enacted in the future.

How will I know if air quality standards have been breached?

As noted above, the BLANkET indicative data cannot be used to determine if an air quality standard has been breached. The data will however provide a good indication of air quality at any given time, and hence provide an indication that, had a reference instrument been located at a given site, whether an air quality breach would have been likely to have been recorded.

What is a ‘safe’ level of smoke?

A number of health studies carried out both in Australia and overseas have clearly shown there is no ‘safe’ level of exposure to wood smoke. Any increase in particle levels a given population is exposed to will result in increases in, for example, hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses.

Those most at risk include people with respiratory conditions, the very young, and the elderly, but other people in the wider population can also experience medical problems.

The fine particles found in wood smoke are very difficult to remove from the air. During widespread smoke events it is very difficult for susceptible people to avoid exposure. Standard air conditioning equipment is not able to prevent the small smoke particles from entering domestic buildings.

Posted by PB on 11/04/13 at 10:06 AM

All the excuses in the world to promote forestry burns come up empty when you see the pictures of the devastation and know how many people have their health affected due to this craziness.
What is important? Burning or the health of the residents?
Seems black & white to me….

Posted by Shirley Brandie on 11/04/13 at 10:19 AM

#5 Robin, you are blind to reality, which is understandable considering your ideology and certainly have no idea of the facts.

The forests regenerated thousands of times, long before any human walked in Tas. The biodiversity was wonderful before the introduction of forest destruction, things have only got worse since and yet you demand we keep wiping out nature as fast as possible.

#21 Stu, are you sure you’re not looking in a mirror, as history holds all the evidence needed. What you support provides all the evidence needed to stop this ongoing destruction for nothing, but economic greed. I suppose your disbelief equates to your denial of reality and lack of historic knowledge of what constitutes forest regeneration, outside the fools propaganda you rely upon for your evidence.

Posted by A.K. on 11/04/13 at 10:32 AM

#21: Stu you are never here in response to smoke issues. You avoid making comments on smoke issues every time. Look back through the links in my #17.

And i will say it again too, burning is not required at least 80% of the time because FT say so.
And i will say it again three, do your own research and don’t be lazy.

If you are ‘not here in response to smoke issues’ then what are you here for?

Posted by Clive Stott on 11/04/13 at 10:39 AM

who is paying the carbon taxes on the emissions

Posted by mike seabrook on 11/04/13 at 11:15 AM

Bruce#20, Agree and I am pleased to say that both Mountain Road and the heavily gravelled, contoured, and culverted logging track to Coupe BA388D are regenerating well now that the coupe is off the FT list and subject to future WHA listing!

Posted by John Powell on 11/04/13 at 12:49 PM

And again number 21 I ask you what your definition of ‘adequate’ regen is. Is this adequate in an ecological sense or adequate in an economic sense.
How is it that I can be told from some quite vehemently that burning is not necessary and the exact opposite by people like yourself. Both can’t be right. It seems less of an argument about whether burning for regen is ever necessary and more a differentiation of terms of what is adequate re-gen and whether other forest ecological services and social desires are accounted for within a holistic approach. The sustainable approach must look at all three pillars but because the environment is where all resources and services spring from it must be the priority pillar. Any and all social and economic benefits that flow on from there, after protection of the eco-system has been accounted for are a bonus.
I did not respond to your posts on the other thread as it was 24 hours after the article and TT notified us that comments would not be mediated or posted. But thank you for the information.Ed:Intelligent comments which advance a thread continue to be posted beyond any deadline ...

Posted by Sue DeNim on 11/04/13 at 02:05 PM

21 # Stu. You may be right that the regeneration burns give a better regen for even age single species but at what cost. Not one of these clear-felled areas that have been regenerated have returned one cent to the Australian Taxpayers, even though they, the taxpayers have paid millions to subsidise the clear felling and burning. What’s more there is not one person alive today that will see a single cent from a regeneration burn. While the tax payers will never see a return from these regeneration burn in the form of a sustainable timber supply they have a double whammy in the form of 2.5 particulate that can wreck their lives.

I believe FT needs to inject the first bit of profit it makes into our health system. This would make up for the cost-shifting they go on with when they burn their forest rubbish and make people ill.
These public health costs, as a result of FT pollution, do not just stop at the end of a burn either.

Robin in #15. Haven’t you got it yet?
People are complaining across the state about FT smoke and the lack of ‘abundant Tasmanian fresh air.’
If you have forgotten the harmful effects of this wood smoke, toddle over and have a read at http://www.cleanairtas.com/issmoke.htm

Posted by Clive Stott on 11/04/13 at 08:05 PM

Professor Bowman says there are implications for forestry burns in Tasmania.
He states, ‘We are exposing populations to risks and preventative measures have got to be taken.
There has got to be an understanding that people who complain about the smoke have a legitimate case, the medical science is on their side now.’

Posted by Clive Stott on 11/04/13 at 10:33 PM

Spot on Max #30
This is the case not simply in Tasmania.
Clearfelling mixed species, mixed age forests and then to create a new crop of “currently desired” fast growing, mainly pulpwood crops is outdated thinking.
Anyone seriously interested in responsible forest management in a holistic way can find lots of indicators of how such systems work.
Denial and false pride does not help.
I recall the discussion we had in Europe 30 years ago on the very same point you made.
So, the last thing a good forest manager and forest owner wants to do is to destroy it because a forest is more thant the dominating trees at any given time.
It is a global fact that when a forest is clearfelled that there will be no true profit ever return in a century.
Some other area of forest somewhere or other material has to be produced somehow to replace of what is no more.
Because in Tasmania the regenerted areas are not thinned frequently to optimise the growth potential, the econnomic and material outcomes and the social and environmental impact and risk are even higher.
Sadly the forest conversion brigade never learned the alternative scenario and most if not all the politicians have no answer because there is no forest management culture to present.
So the spin contiues as it has in so many now arid zones of the globe.
Libanon use to have high value Cedar forests…
Italy, Spain ones apon a time;
Not to forget the Oak and Beech dominated forests long gone in Europe including the UK converted to simplistic crops of something…
Restoration forestry and whole quality, community supported forest management is the future, including Biomass from Forests http://www.forestguild.org/biomass.html
The Forest Guild practices and promotes ecologically, economically, and socially responsible forestry. Biomass removals have become a key part of forestry across the country. Whether woody biomass removals are implemented for forest health, fire threat reduction, pulp production, energy needs, or timber stand improvement, the process must leave the forest healthier and help sustain forest dependent communities. The Guild is actively engaged in (1) research into successful strategies for biomass removal, (2) the development of guidelines for biomass removal that protect all forest values, and (3) projects that provide energy from low grade wood.

Posted by Frank Strie on 12/04/13 at 08:32 AM

#7 “Public Health must take priority over polluting and outdated industries…”
Now that’s confusing- in absolute terms ‘pollution’ (not easily defined) has been significantly reduced over the past 20 years but it would be impossible to eliminate ‘pollution’ altogether- every industry contributes some ‘pollution’ in some form or another and “Public Health” is affected in many more serious ways than through ‘pollution’.
#7 is suggesting forestry is an “outdated industry” We would very quickly have much more to worry about than “Public Health”- narrowly defined- if there was absolutely no ‘forest industry’-a key aim of the Greens (Bob Brown’s “the whole of Tasmania should be World Heritage Listed” sets that target.
In order to maintain a forest industry -to maintain any industry, even grape growing and wine production- there are some “public” costs.
Communities bear those and do what is necessary to provide help to those who may be negatively affected by those industries.

Posted by TGC on 12/04/13 at 08:49 AM

Calm down folks this is not Armageddon, I am trying to figure what the excessive excitement is all about.

Now I think it rained a fair in bit up north over the Easter hence no burning.
Most likely the window of opportuntity for burning is closing in as the season moves into mid autumn, fine slash fuels wont get any drier so the prudent course of action is to burn now not later.
Later burns risk gambling with the weather, a resulting poorer burn poses a risk to the successful establishment of euc regen. Late burns can generate excessive amounts of smoke and that is exactly what FT is avoiding.

As I said before the weather pattern with perhaps lower inversion layers complicit with the time of the year cannot be avoided.
I am not on site at Smithton so I would expect the smoke would disperse given the effects of its coastal location.

Posted by Robin Halton on 12/04/13 at 09:11 AM

#35 TGC - Yes,shut the whole forestry industry down. If you, along with George Harris and his gang, sawmillers & contractors & all involved with forestry industry think it is so good, then put your money where your mouth is and subsidise it to the tune us taxpayers have, over the previous 30 odd yrs! No more State govt grants and hand-outs. Not 1c.
If forestry industry is so good, why is FT stone motherless broke?,and it not been investigated for financial viability by the Leg-Co.s by now. Basil Fitch

Posted by Basil Fitch on 12/04/13 at 09:25 AM

36 # Robin, you once learned something and now you are hard wired to your teachings. I repeatedly ask you, what is the point of a clear felling and burn policy that will never bring a sustainable forest industry. Read Frank Strie at 34 and try and absorb the simple truth that the rest of the world has learnt the hard way. And you are wrong on Armageddon, this present forest debacle is Armageddon and Forestry Tasmania are not on the side of good. We need people like you to save what is left of the forest industry but you are on the wrong track, as I keep pointing out, there is no future in clear felling and burning. Every day we are allowing our working forest to be decimated, every day the working forest are shrinking and every day this is done at a loss to the taxpayers and every burn means less available harvest areas. That smoke that is effecting our health is coming from burning a product that should have been converted to naocystalline or other uses. Please stop championing stone age technology and start campaigning for a good sustainable forest industry.

Posted by max on 12/04/13 at 01:15 PM

#37- a bit like Holden, Billabong, (remember Kodak)
the State Government, the list goes on- #37 is at an age when shutting down any industry wouldn’t be a concern- although it’d be handy to keep the funeral industry going- and therefore can afford to take a self-centred attitude.

Posted by TGC on 12/04/13 at 04:36 PM

Even at this late stage in the debate, those coupes being allowed to be cut down now by the signatories in the interim, are these areas regrowth or pristine virgin forest/old growth, being burnt now. Are there areas being cut down that have never been cut before? Who is telling the truth? Considering we are 500k population, seems too much energy goes into propaganda, and none into the discovering truth. Then there wouldn’t be sides.

Posted by Treeger on 12/04/13 at 05:07 PM

#36 Robin

“Calm down folks this is not Armageddon, I am trying to figure what the excessive excitement is all about”

Of course the excitement is due to the simple reality that a few with some actual knowledge, such as yourself and Stu, actually dared to respond to the largely puerile commentary of most other posters.

#34 Frank .... When will you finally come to grips with the reality that Australia is a landscape shaped by fire, and that to compare its forests and their management to the European situation is like comparing apples with oranges.

#25 AK

“The forests regenerated thousands of times, long before any human walked in Tas. The biodiversity was wonderful before .......”

Ah ... the old lets leave it to nature concept which irrationally ignores some pretty crucial changes that have been wrought on the landscape over the past 200-years of European settlement.

Before settlement: Fires would have burnt widely across the landscape each spring summer and autumn from natural ignition by lightning or due to indigenous burning. There was nothing to inhibit their spread and no need to given that notions such as privately-owned properties and assets, and townships did not exist.

So the natural state of mainland Australia and Tasmania is for smoke to be in the air for substantial periods of each year, much more so than is the case now.

Because of this frequent burning, most of the bush was perpetually kept in a low fuel state and fires didn’t burn with great ferocity. Many of the early explorers and settlers referred to the bush as open and park-like, far different to today.

The exception was the wet ash-type forests which typically would only burn in times of severe drought, perhaps in-part every hundred years or so, which is what the regeneration burns of harvested coupes is essentially mimicking.

Compare this to today: We have a mixed landscape of forests and cleared farmland with houses, fences and livestock, and scattered townships, as well as community assets such as powerlines.

So, we simply can’t afford to let fires burn unhindered through the landscape as they once did for fear of damaging life and property .... so we can’t leave it to nature, we must try and manage it ... and that means burning-off as much as we can when it is safe to do so.

If we don’t, we are simply fostering a situation where forests become more and more scrubby and when they do inevitably burn, it is with a wholly unnatural ferocity that does destroy biodiversity and soils, and compromises water values for decades into the future. You could say that this would be the legacy of ‘letting nature take its course’ in the altered and unnatural landscape that we have to live with today.

So by all means lets leave it to nature, but just don’t expect a natural result.

# most posters

To those who constantly carp about forestry not returning a cent to the community in profit, it is pertinent to ask whether you use wood and paper, or live in houses or use community facilities that are made at least in part from wood.

Producing wood products is ultimately how forestry benefits the community whether or not it returns a profit.

… because Forestry Tasmania logged an area they weren’t supposed to and fined for, couldn’t burn because it contained a species of plant that didn’t regenerate after fire, AND as a contractor hired some years later to poison some native vines taking over the coupe said - FT told him it was one of the best regenerated coupes they had and they couldn’t understand why, because they hadn’t burnt it! Now FT know which coupe number this is because it was documented on stateline and FT were fined for logging it, weren’t you sweeties!

I know the smoke that Dr Nicole Anderson talks about sat in my valley, a bit over half an hour away from Smithton. I woke up to it, and in fear of another fire. Oh but it was only the government through their failed GBE burning the residues of native forest logging AGAIN!

I’m so glad, as a named doctor you have experienced and are willing to talk about the effects Dr Anderson. Good on you.

Robin, you don’t live in the district and don’t experience what these forestry fires do in our district, neither does Poynter. Try as you might Mark, your old tired line on naturally using paper and wood products to try and skittle is just that - old and tired.

Posted by Claire Gilmour on 12/04/13 at 06:07 PM

Here’s some evidence of a no burning coupe STU! (page 12 and 14)http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/ashes-to-ashes-dust-to-dust/http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Ashes_to_Ashes_-_ver2.pdf
… because Forestry Tasmania logged an area they weren’t supposed to and fined for, couldn’t burn because it contained a species of plant that didn’t regenerate after fire, AND as a contractor hired some years later to poison some native vines taking over the coupe said - FT told him it was one of the best regenerated coupes they had and they couldn’t understand why - because they hadn’t burnt it! Now FT know which coupe number this is because it was documented on stateline and FT were fined for logging it, weren’t you sweeties!
I know the smoke that Dr Nicole Anderson talks about sat in my valley, a bit over half an hour away from Smithton. I woke up to it, and in fear of another fire. Oh but it was only the government through their failed GBE burning the residues of native forest logging AGAIN!
I’m so glad, as a named doctor you have experienced and are willing to talk about the effects Dr Anderson. Good on you.

Robin, you don’t live in the district and don’t experience what these forestry fires do in our district, neither do you Poynter. Try as might Mark, your old tired line on naturally using paper and wood products to try and skittle is just that - old and tired. Get up with the game sweet pea, its all about who’s getting/going to get the dollars now … you sucked the wrong straw baby!

Posted by Claire Gilmour on 12/04/13 at 07:31 PM

41 # Mark, are you for real ? I have worked in, walked in and driven around most of the forest of Tasmania since 1950 and what you have said is just not true. The Tasmanian Aborigines tried to burn out the forests of Tasmania, their lives depended on turning forest to grass lands and what they failed to burn is what the early settlers called pristine forests. That is documented history. And now we come to the present, forests that the Aborigines failed to burn are being clear-felled and burnt at a rate that is unsustainable and at no return to the taxpayers that have to subsidise this clear felling madness. Sawmills are shutting down because good trees have been wood chipped, available saw log in most cases are immature and carpenters are buying cheaper and better timber from overseas. Paper products are coming from overseas and the timber industry needs to get FSC certification if it is to survive but refuse to operate in a sustainable manner so that they can get FSC. There is something radically wrong with the idea that the forestry industry has to be subsidised and we should applaud being taxed to support it, even though we import our wood products. I can only conclude that you are trying to divert peoples thoughts from the abomination of the present forest industry or you have been brainwashed.

Posted by max on 12/04/13 at 08:51 PM

#41: Mark don’t even try and level indigenous burning with what FT are doing now.

This ‘mimicing nature’ concept was obviously thought up by some pyromaniac to justify their unnatural urges.
You have obviously been brainwashed to believe this is true.

Give our fire fighters some credit for not living in the stone age like you want to. They keep up with modern methods of extinguishing fires these days. Tell the whole story.

If our forests were being managed properly there would be no need to burn, no need for smoke.

And you are aware that it is these same height plantations that are changing wind paterns and altering our weather. Tell the whole story.

I can’t believe you think what forestry is doing in Tasmania is giving a ‘natural result’.

It is not natural for human beings, and other forms of life, to breathe forestry smoke. If it was we would all be born with hospital-grade filters attached to our air intakes.

Posted by Clive Stott on 12/04/13 at 08:52 PM

RE: #41 - Hello Mark Poynter & Associates,
You seem to have missed numerous links over recent weeks. You also ignore the fact as Prof. David Bowman pointed out that until 1959 Eucalyptus regnans / ‘ash type’ (pioneer species) belonged to the Rainforest.
It suited the Eucalypt processing industry to have Eucalypts in the wet forest environment locations reclassified as “Wet Eucalypt Forests”, as if these forests would end with their natural succession or transition to rainforest in case of a lack of fire in many cases.

Mark, frankly speaking you and your generation of foresters of Australian schooling were trained and educated to fit into this simplistic start- stop objective.
Your latest comment #41 highlighted this: ...“The exception was the wet ash-type forests which typically would only burn in times of severe drought, perhaps in-part every hundred years or so, which is what the regeneration burns of harvested coupes is essentially mimicking.”
This age-class thinking is no different to the say 130 year long arguments in Central Europe in silviculture.
You may continue to refuse to notice the reality that humans do not need to create catastrophic events to grow optimum high quality, high value timbers.
Clearfell, burn and sow without follow up of regular (initially costly) thinnings from early age on are irresponsible, wasteful lay-back practices.
Optimum growth is only possible with optimum solar / light capture.
The CSIRO’s ‘Young Eucalypt Program’ highlighted the need for such investment action needs.
Forestry Tasmania (Rolley and Gordon) simply ignored the scientific research information from Canberra and now some 20 years later, the consequences will be demonstrated in weeks, months and decades to come.

Anyhow, you have your Eucalypt focused position, whereas ProSilva Foresters and Forest Guild Foresters around the world have the holistic approach as guiding principles.
The fact that Australia can not even fill a proper forest class every year demonstrates that this system failed the needs of the Country.
This unsustainable situation is calling for urgent change if our country will ever have a profitable, widely supported future.

RE: “forests become more and more scrubby”...
I am saying again, responsible forest management, I call it ‘proper silviculture’ would ‘muster’ the forest stands every 4 to 6 years (say 5) and do what is best for the short, medium and long term of sustainable management.
The market, the people near and far would know what is going on.
FT still does not know yet where, what, how much is growing. They had their chance and they just got away with their style of keeping things to the experts. The LegCo hearings provided the last chance for the FT managers to show their quality and expertise to the world.
They could not even produce 1:10,000 scale maps to the inquiry, what a missed opportunity!
In contrast, ‘positive selection thinking, planning and action’ go hand in glove with good economics, responsible ergonomics and environmental expectations.
Interesting times ahead.

Posted by Frank Strie on 12/04/13 at 09:18 PM

The medical profession is just a front for the Greens & medical science is Green Propaganda. Everyone knows that.

If Forestry Tasmania say that smoke is good for Asthmatics then that’s good enough for me.

Posted by Pilko on 12/04/13 at 10:53 PM

#41; I’m not informed on the subject so am simply asking the question, but are European forests and Australian forests so dramatically different in the basic principles.
It’s an argument I often hear when anyone quotes experience from other parts of the world but how true is it?
Europe would have had big fires also. I believe they still do occasionally. Wood burns in the Northern hemisphere in much the same way as it does here. Lightning strikes also occur in the Northern hemisphere. Seems to me that, whilst the species may be different, valid comparisons can still be drawn.
What Europe does have, which we don’t, is a long historical record of what works and what doesn’t. Trees grow slowly, some very slowly. Without a multi generational perspective how can you really judge what management techniques work best?
Denigrating those who bring such a perspective appears to be wilful ignorance of the first order.

Posted by Steve on 13/04/13 at 08:43 AM

#41 Steve

European forests and Australian forests are quite different. Australian forests are very variable, but are mostly dependent on fire in some way for their long-term survival and renewal, whereas European forests are far less so.

Australian forests are virtually all evergreens, whereas a large proportion of European forests are deciduous.

The most stark differences are probably seen between the most productive hardwood forests in the two continents.

The wet forests of southern Australia are dominated by eucalypt species that are highly sensitive to fire and are intolerant of shade. Therefore, they are periodically killed by severe bushfires and regenerate en masse on ash seedbeds under full sunlight. This is essentially why they are best suited to intensive harvesting that opens up the ground to full sunlight, rather than light selective logging.

Being intolerant of shade, these species do not readily regenerate in gaps created by the death of trees through other non-fire means, given that such gaps are still shaded by luxuriant undergrowth of ferns and other species. In selective logging of these forests, there may be some regeneration on disturbed soil seedbeds, but due to shading this is likely to have inhibited and stunted growth.

In contrast to this, European hardwood forests are largely dominated by shade tolerant species that can regenerate under limited light conditions and often have relatively sparse understoreys. Accordingly, they are well suited to selective harvesting cycles and don’t need to be intensively felled to ensure their regeneration.

You said: “Without a multi generational perspective how can you really judge what management techniques work best?”

Just what do you think Australia’s forestry practitioners have been doing over the past 150-years (isn’t that multiple generations)? The management of timber production forests has evolved over this time from unfettered exploitation in the pioneering era, to tightly controlled management using the lessons of the past to ensure renewable harvesting. Clearfelling was recognised as the most effective means of regenerating wet eucalypt forests in the late 1950s after extensive research into regeneration failures under past selective harvesting regimes. To imply that this method has somehow been pulled out of thin air and is driven by greed and profits (as is often the case on this website) is simply wrong.

You also said: “Denigrating those who bring such a (European) perspective appears to be wilful ignorance of the first order”

Well lets see, I have had a 35-year career as a forester in southern Australia, including Tasmania. Yet, for going to the trouble of voicing an opinion on this thread (#41), I have been subsequently derided because:

I no longer live in Tasmania (#42)
I supposedly have old and tired views - apparently “I sucked the wrong straw baby” (#43)
I have been brainwashed (#44 and #45)and
Me and my generation of foresters were simplistically schooled and trained (#46)

If denigrating those who bring a European perspective is wilfull ignorance, isn’t this also the case for denigrating those who try to bring an informed Australian perspective?

Well, apparently not on TT, which is why so few of us bother anymore. Sadly all that is left for TT is to host uninformed bitch sessions between the same tired collective of bored participants desperately in need of a life-direction.

Posted by Mark Poynter on 13/04/13 at 11:40 AM

#45 Clive Stott

“Give our fire fighters some credit for not living in the stone age like you want to. They keep up with modern methods of extinguishing fires these days. Tell the whole story. If our forests were being managed properly there would be no need to burn, no need for smoke”

Sadly Clive, with comments like this you display your complete ignorance in this area. By the way, what are your qualifications and experience in relation to forest fire management?

Perhaps as a starting point, you could read the various works of highly respected US-based fire historian Steven J Pyne. You may then understand the abject nonsense of your above-comments in regards to Australia’s fire-dominated landscapes.

Posted by Mark Poynter on 13/04/13 at 11:47 AM

Tony Blanks from Forestry Tasmania:
“So it means that even though we generate smoke we can’t absolutely guarantee that there will be a direct benefit as a result of it” - ABC Stateline 20/8/2010.

Mark in #41 I take it you are trying to say we won’t have paper if it wasn’t for our current forest industry.
Are you worried you won’t have toilet paper?
Paper can be made out of things other than wood. More environmentally friendly too.

Posted by Clive Stott on 13/04/13 at 03:00 PM

#49; Thanks for a detailed answer Mark. I can see the point you are making. Hopefully someone such as Frank Strie can present the alternative view so that I can see both sides of this argument.
When I said a multi generational perspective, I was actually meaning a bit longer than 150 years; tree generations, not forester generations. Sloppy writing on my behalf. Sorry!
With regard to the denigration of those bringing an informed Australian perspective; it’s a fair point, however those with such a perspective generally present it in a way that’s almost guaranteed to offend. Look at Robin’s efforts above. Telling people suffering from smoke inhalation that they need to get fitter and breathe more fresh Tassie air?

Posted by Steve on 13/04/13 at 03:30 PM

Mark, there really is no point. We may as well have a converstaion with our echos bouncing off a brick wall. The ignorance and misconception is unbelievable. Take heart in knowing that people like this will never be taken seriously except by a very limited number of close-minded individuals who have nowhere else to go but TT. For all his talk of his education being better than anyone here in Aust I’m betting Frank has never really managed a forest or plantation here in Tas. Never seen any photos of his work, how the economics of the operatrion stacked up, how he worked in accordance with OH&S standards or the results of satisfied landowners 10 years down the track.

Posted by Stu on 13/04/13 at 05:13 PM

49 # Mark. I have no wish to belittle your years as a forester but there is a harsh reality called economics. Clearfelling was recognised as the most effective means of regenerating wet eucalypt forests in the late 1950s may be a fact but at what cost. When will the first mature sawlog be harvested from these late 50’s clearfells? What happened to 50 year old trees in these clearfells that would have matured into a sawlog?

Posted by max on 13/04/13 at 07:20 PM

Here goes Stu again in #53.
The three ‘smokers’ in this thread are about to pack up and go home. Good! How can they justify smoking people to death anyway? Their ‘echos sure are just bouncing off a brick wall’ because they have no base;-)

OH&S standards? That is an absolute laugh to bring that up when even you can read what people are posting on a subject to do with our health being ruined by needless forestry smoke.

Many of these health points brought up earlier are not just personal views by the writers, eg.COPD and lung cancer. They are carefully researched from scientific studies. If you have a bitch with what is said, take it up with the peer reviewed authors.

What do I know?
All I have to do is listen to more senior people in forestry when they indicate burning is not necessay. Advance your knowledge. Are you saying you know more than these learned people in your own profession? Are you saying you know more than learned medical GP’s? Shame if you are, this is where the brainwashing bit comes in.
I do know how many of these planned burns escape their boundaries. I do know know that fire fighters suffer greater amounts of smoke related illness because of their profession.

The only reason we live in a ‘burning landscape’ is because you feel the need to go light fires and kill eveything that pops it’s head out of the ground that doesn’t fit in with your financial losing agenda.
And because as i said before because of these same height plantations that change our winds and climate.

You want readers to “read the various works of highly respected US-based fire historian Steven J Pyne.” and yet you try and denigrate our own, highly rspected Frank Stie’s knowledge and experience.
This is the problem, you sit around and read too many burning books. How about putting them down and go visit some of the cancer patients in the Holman Cancer Clinic in Launceston.
Talk to our respiratory specialsts in the state. There is a wealth of knowledge what your harmful smoke is doing to people before a long and suffering death.
Have a close look at the COPD shock adverts starting on TV tomorrow.
Yes forestry smoke is responsible for COPD attacks as well, and everytime a patient suffers one of these the disease actually progresses!

You three are not representative of the forestry workers I know.

Posted by Clive Stott on 13/04/13 at 08:03 PM

I imagine if you 2 blokes (Robin Halton and Mark Poynter) had your own way of dealing with bush-fires, you both should be calling for the helicopter tankers and planes to drop thousands of litres of fire-accelerant over these conflagrations in lieu of water or fire retardant chemicals?
When these fires were contained and controlled then to be finally extinguished, you 2 avid Native Forest denuding desperadoes then immediately begin your prattle about how we now need to set more fires in our forests!

Now I would like to address the major Tasmanian-people offending speak-person, being the man behind all the Mainland Forestry Twitterings, Mr Mark Poynter.
Mark, ‘do your lot over there among all the Victorian timbered high mountain ranges and other timbered regions also have the same propensity as our logging industry hucksters here that seek to start lighting bush-fires as soon as the bushfire season is passed?’
Why is it that you yourself don’t call for petrol or diesel bombing of your own Victorian burning forests, just think about all the regenerating work you would be accomplishing?
No Mark, my comments are no more foolish than your own comments, of light up our forests and start to get ‘em to begin anew, via that awe-inspiring method you constantly spruik about,
‘to regenerate the unburnt by bushfire regions by your ‘bushfire catalyst process’ ‘to cause the hopefully assumed new eucalypt species to start rocketing upwards.’
Thus to see in 20 or so years time, all set to begin another bushfire burn-off by you and your team of light-minded forest fire-lighting mendicants.
Pardon me Mark, but I can clearly sense the powerful odour of forestry Bull-scat reaching all the way across Bass Strait in its bid to challenge the wood-smoke ills and evils forever being dumped upon the unfortunate people here by you and your friendly Forestry Tasmania fiends.

So remember Mark at the onset of next year’s bushfire season remember to fire-bomb the nature caused event of bush-fires- with some sort of flame accelerant, as using only water will halt your dearly loved regeneration fires and cause them to be extinguished.

Over to you 2 flame-bouyant and fire-loving-combustion-preaching selves, Robin and Main-lander Mark.

Posted by William Boeder on 13/04/13 at 08:15 PM

Deep seated fear #49 and #53 and reflection of anger.
My previous comment and statements about the “Australian forestry schooling, education and training” post 1959 was and is not aimed as to denegrate, but as a statement of fact.
Just as what I was exposed to in my initial training in state forestry, my initial three years in forestry training in South West Germany during the mid to late 1970s was still dominated by the age-class mindset and aim for fast, pure stand regeneration following “final harvest”.

However, the fact is that this policy changed in the early 1980s to 1990, whereby other more complex factors came into consideration and drivers of management.
We began to debate and question the taboo issues very soon after entering the forest industry - whereas before our time, such frank questioning was not accepted, it was domination by the spablishment: 1. “listen, 2.do as you’re told, and 3. shut up - if you want a future in forestry. That was the norm.

Yes, we are all influenced and formed like a product of our era and our individual upbringing is influenced by the dominating agenda in society.

Who and how many Aussies want to study clearfell & burn forestry? Not enough to fill a single class of students in Canberra.

Steve? #52, may I suggest that the best way to present the alternative views, so that any interested people can see the multiple dimensions of these ongoing decades long arguments would be achivable with a number of visits of forests and plantations, and this in the variable terrain conditions in Tasmania.
The topic of light and shade requirements of forest trees are simply one mouse click away:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tree_species_by_shade_tolerance

A list of tree species, grouped generally by biogeographic realm and specifically by bioregions, and shade tolerance. Shade-tolerant species are species that are able to thrive in the shade, and in the presence of natural competition by other plants. Shade-intolerant species require full sunlight and little or no competition. Intermediate shade-tolerant trees fall somewhere in between the two.

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
So Stu?, Mark Poynter and any member of the IFA may be willing and able to ad to the wikipedia listing, the many variable requirements of South Eastern Australia’s tree flora.

53; Fair comment as far as it goes. Please could you produce your credentials, as per your requirements?

Posted by Steve on 13/04/13 at 09:37 PM

I cant help but laugh. #55, so you listen to more senior people in forestry when they indicate burning is not necessay. Like who? None other than our eurpoean expert Frank. In the Australian context I certainly do know more than Frank. And now it appears plantations change our wind and climate! This statement alone indicates your level of understanding and rationality. Frank Strie’s knowledge and experience may be highly respected in europe but it certainly isn’t here. As I suspected, for all his talk of experience he has come up with nothing. #57, the study of clearfel burn and sow was perhaps 2% of my uni studies so it goes to show your level of knowledge of what is taught. As for your list of species, it’s of no relevance to our native forests and plantations. In the Australian context you could add ~700 eucalypt species to the list of shade intolerant species for some relevance.

#53 G’day Steve. Bachelor of Forest Science (no big deal in itself), over 10 years experience in the Tas forest industry (native forests and plantations). Work has been published by the Rural Industries and Research Development Corporation, Australian Forest Growers and goverment departments. Personally managed several plantations covering a range of species. Responsible for selective harvesting of native forest (non euc) where previous standard was clearfell. Experience in sawmilling and a woodworker, utilising timbers I’ve milled myself.

Posted by Stu on 14/04/13 at 09:42 AM

Alternatives to burning are now encouraged because they have less impact on air quality and are more environmentally sustainable.- Aust. Govt. Dept. of Environment -Smoke from Biomass Burning.

Posted by Clive Stott on 14/04/13 at 11:09 AM

The Gidding’s mislead Green partnership as the current State Government had FAILED to bring about advice that the State Fire Management Council presented to the then Bartlett Governemnt 3 years ago resulting from the infamous Victorian Fires.

But no, Girlie has to keep her Green partnership happy, dismissed the advice until she got caught out having to recently explain “whats going on here” from the public with a number of potentially nasty bush fires in Southern Tasmania occuring during the past two years.

The Meadowbank fire two years ago should have been a reminder of its potential to rip through a series of grasslands interconnected with light bush including productive grazing properties and a vineyard in the mid Derwent Valley aiming for the Capital
Yet this season the Repulse Fire had the same potential, the Molesworth fire occuring in rough terrain much later had it broken loose would have at least devastated the Ferntree area and burnt through masses of forested and scrubby vegetation resulting from the 1967 inferno to the south of the Wellington Range creating more fireground.

Worst of all was the Forcett fire which is has already known per the media as an unattended stump burning underground at Inala Rd at Forcett as the origin of this fire.
It is also rumoured that the fire was a permit fire issued with the consent of the Distrct Officer at a time just prior to the wildfire outbreak
Some authorised fuel reduction was carried out by landowners at Ironstone Ck- Forcett- Dodges Ferry earlier, it is believed these burns had nothing to do with the origins of the Forcett Fire.

Recently we see the Premier aiming for an Independent investigation of this seasons fires fires and reluctantly accepting to link the findings with the outstanding advice from the SFMC three years ago.
A top cop from SA has been appointed to the committee to investigate and come up some reasonable recommendations.
If the investigation and in I opinion is its an if, heads could roll especially for the current administration of the Fire Services Act 1979, mainly by both their own career and volunteer personell.
I am not detailing the exact concerns as the investigation is now underway.
In my opinion had the advice of the SFMC had been initiated previously then I am certian that the devastating Forcett fire would not have occured anyway.

I think that folk on this site could benefit take into account the the historical percpective of fire management on the Tsamanian landscape by #41 by Mark Poynter in reply to #25 AK as his reply answers what future mangement regimes should consider to act upon.

Posted by Robin Halton on 14/04/13 at 11:31 AM

#59 Re:“As for your list of species, it’s of no relevance to our native forests and plantations”.
Spot observation!
Can you direct us to a quick link to a list of tree species, grouped generally by biogeographic realm and specifically by bioregions, and shade tolerance. Shade-tolerant species are species that are able to thrive in the shade, and in the presence of natural competition by other plants. Shade-intolerant species require full sunlight and little or no competition. Intermediate shade-tolerant trees fall somewhere in between the two.
Here in Tasmania / South East Australia?

As I suggested, this list is incomplete; you could help by expanding it so others may benefit from it.
To be private forest owners for the last two decades in Tasmania does not count.
There is always another angry claim, so this is the last time I will respond to the individual who is hiding his identity.
In West Tamar our biggest and oldest E. obliqua is close to 12m around the base and a Wombat lives under it, possums have their tracks up into the massive and health cown. The surrounding regrowth trees are ca 90 years old.
With my family I have established a bio-diverse multi-species windbreak with exotics and native species, works very well and looks good to us.
I/We have no need to make things up to win a debate, not even a false name. Nothing to hide.

Posted by Frank Strie on 14/04/13 at 12:06 PM

I think you will find more frightening fires in this state result from intentiional burning. Robin agrees.

So lets not foregt our population health damaged by these intentional burns.
Compare the number of deaths in recent years as a result of fires in the open and the number of deaths for the same period as a result of smoke.
Go figure.

Posted by Clive Stott on 14/04/13 at 12:26 PM

How inconsistent.
You smoke advocates reckon that Frank’s ideas from elsewhere are no good but now you come out and say Lara should have adopted Victorian recommendations.
They were Victorian Royal Commission recommendations and had absolutely nothing to do with Tasmania. Did they?

Posted by Clive Stott on 14/04/13 at 12:46 PM

From the Sunday Examiner 14/4/2013
Hundreds of thousands of Australians are endangering their health by the regular use of wood heaters at home.
About 1 million homes regularly use wood-burning heaters, despite links to heart and lung disease. Health and environment experts are calling on the federal government to better regulate their use.
In a submission to a Senate inquiry into the impact of air quality on health, a Launceston lung specialist, James Markos, said there was no safe threshold for the fine particle pollution that resulted from wood-burning heaters, just as there was no safe threshold for exposure to tobacco smoke.
Along with irritating existing conditions such as asthma and emphysema, studies had found that prolonged exposure to wood smoke was an ‘‘important environmental risk factor’’ in fatal heart or lung disease or lung cancer, he said.
At particular risk were those with lung disease, children, older people and those who lived in valleys, where smoke could get trapped.
The inquiry, which holds its first hearing on Tuesday, comes as the Council of Australian Governments environment council released a discussion paper on national action to reduce emissions from wood heaters.
According to the paper, wood heater emissions are a ‘‘significant’’ contributor to particle pollution in Australia during winter. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found 10 per cent of homes used wood heaters as the main source of heat. This adds up to about 1.1 million wood heaters around the country, with about 25,000 new ones sold each year.
While state governments and local councils have introduced schemes to reduce wood heater emissions and a review of the Australian standards for emissions is now under way, an Edith Cowan University adjunct professor, John Todd, has told the inquiry a national taskforce was needed.
The environment consultant argued that there had been little change in wood heater technology for 30 years, and the government should invest in research to produce cleaner-burning heaters. ‘‘This is a national problem,’’ Dr Todd said.
The Australian Medical Association said the ‘‘big issue’’ was that the exact impact of wood smoke on health was not being measured. Its president, Steve Hambleton, said that even though average air quality was monitored in Australia, it needed to be checked in specific pockets.

The Australian Home Heating Association already has a proposal to change the national standard for wood heaters, to reduce the particulate matter per kilogram of wood burnt, from 4 grams to 2.5 grams. General manager Demi Brown said owners could also minimise smoke if they used their heaters correctly.
Ms Brown said that governments needed to better enforce compliance standards for wood heaters. She said her organisation had notified state environmental protection authorities several times about heaters for sale that were not certified, or that differed from their certified design. They received no reply or follow-up, she said.
But she noted that wood heating emitted fewer greenhouse gases than other forms of home heating, and provided a warmth no other energy source could rival.
Parliamentary secretary for sustainability Amanda Rishworth said the government was participating in the inquiry and would respond to its findings.

Posted by max on 14/04/13 at 05:09 PM

This is an interesting discussion, if you can discount the sundry abuse coming from both sides.
Max asked a reasonable question a while back at #54. His earlier comment at #44 is also worth contemplation. I have to say it mirrors my observations of the Tasmanian timber industry.
The thing is that there’s two separate issues with the Tasmanian forestry industry. One is the forestry; the science behind what is practised.
The other is the business practices behind this. Unfortunately, it’s sometimes hard to divide these.
People on the forestry side have nailed their colours to the mast defending both the business and the science. I would say that the demise of Gunns pretty well kills the argument for the business case, although there are those who’d fuss about the detail.
An awful lot of the bad feeling on both sides of the debate has been fuelled by the business practices. It’d be nice if this could be put aside and some genuine discussion take place on the best way forward on a scientific basis.
I fully appreciate the argument put forward by Mark in that shade intolerant trees require a clear start if they’re to grow into good saw logs. I can see another side to this in that a healthy forest may well require more of a mixture. Perhaps it’s a good thing that there’s a thick patch of ferns in the this spot so the eucalypts don’t over dominate, but in this clearing, the eucalypts get a good start.
Except for the big ones, most wild fires I’ve seen aren’t a blanket clearfell and burn, some areas are more intense than others. Some mature trees survive, some don’t.
I can also see that intense burning is rapidly going out of fashion. Perhaps not this year, perhaps not next year but the seasons are numbered. Once the medical profession starts pointing out the problems, it’s only a matter of time, just like leaded petrol and smoking.
Smoking has hung on for a while due to the money involved and the extent to which it’s interwoven into society but forestry doesn’t have those sorts of friends, even in Tasmania. Public pressure is going to stop the burning so it might be worth while to explore the alternatives.

Posted by Steve on 14/04/13 at 09:30 PM

I am currently undertaking peer-reviewed studies into how burners think (or don’t think) so Stu, Mark, and Robin, your posts have been invaluable.

Posted by Clive Stott on 14/04/13 at 10:03 PM

#63, #64 Clive, its a simple matter of seeing the eucalypt fire ecology through the thick smoke that is clouding your acquired knowledge of the similarity between the cool temperate forests of Tasmania and Southern Victoria.
Maybe I was fortunate to have spend my school holidays during the mid 1950’s not only at Tyenna in the Derwent Valley but in the Dandelong Ranges east of Melbourne. The same eucalypts for example E regnans, Swamp Gums Sth. Tasmania / Mountain ash Victoria, high rainfall, rich soils, sheltered mountain valletys and slopes, same fire history.

Posted by Robin Halton on 14/04/13 at 10:49 PM

Robin you love that thick smoke don’t you? #68

I was over there too at that time…..did you go on puffing billy? Was that you the one that got kicked off and told to walk home but you said you couldn’t; had to catch a plane?

Even all those Malley roots and briquettes burning do not stack up against FT smoke.

But you must admit that was a Victorian Royal Commission into the fires in Victoria. Into what led up to/caused the fires in Victoria.

If you reckon everything here applies the same then you are saying the 60 whatever Recommendations should apply in Tasmania.

You are selectively picking one recommendation out of the mix because you love to burn.

Perhaps i love putting aerial powerlines underground and each of the other recommendations. So according to you we have to do all of them here too?

I guess we could if FT was pulling it’s weight and not loading people onto the health system because of their smoke.

Yes Steve in #66. I like the way you summed it up at the end.

Burning (cough, cough) is a no brainer, there are alternatives.

Posted by Clive Stott on 15/04/13 at 02:32 AM

#65; Wood fires are an totally separate question.
I must confess to heating our home with wood.
I don’t believe we are doing our health any harm by this method. We have an old fashioned device called a chimney that takes the smoke outside the house.
What we may be doing to the good folk of Launceston further up the valley is of course an entirely different question!
I do note that our fire burns clean. You can barely see smoke from our chimney once it’s up to temperature. Result of a poorly insulated house and an undersized heater, we keep plenty of air going into it and a nice hot burn.
I’m not sure that burning fuel in a power station, then using electricity to run a heat pump is going to be any cleaner, especially when you factor in the transmission losses.

Posted by Steve on 15/04/13 at 07:56 AM

#66 G’day Steve. One of the better posts I’ve read. You sound like the sort of rational person I could happily sit down with and have a meaningful discussion regarding the pros and cons of forestry.

Posted by Stu on 15/04/13 at 08:07 AM

#71; Thanks for the kind words Stu. My position is that I’d really like to understand these questions better.
I’ve spent a bit of time on Tasmanian coupes, talked to old school sawmillers, talked to new school forestry graduates. I also used to purchase quantities of timber, native and imported, when I lived in another State and by necessity learned about the industry.
What I don’t know about is how the stuff grows. I own a property that was logged thirty or forty years ago and it’s obvious to me that it’ll be a long time before any worthwhile timber ever comes off it again. This could easily be because it wasn’t burnt or because it was selectively logged but there could be a myriad of other reasons.
I’m interested in comments above referring to the original “park land” nature of the Tasmanian bush. Is this an argument supporting burning or is this a reflection of an environment that has been left alone long enough that there’s seriously large trees dominating and the lack of light is restraining undergrowth?

Posted by Steve on 15/04/13 at 07:19 PM

#71 Forestry can be difficult to comprehend when you consider that what we see in our lifetime is but a fraction compared with tree and forest lifecycles. I can’t really comment on your patch of forest without seeing it but 30-40 years is a short time frame.
The ‘park land’ nature of the Tasmanian bush is in reference to the Midlands region, not Tasmania as a whole. The Midlands were dominated by dry forests that were effectively managed by the aboriginals through burning. It was an increadibly productive landscape for them. I recommend 2 books for reading that would be very insightful. ‘Van Diemens Land’ by James Boyce. The other is a book about Victoria but highly relevant to Tasmania in that both have similar eucalypt forest and aboriginal history. It contains descriptions of the forests by the first exploreres and settlers. ‘The Victorian Bush, it’s original and natural condition’ by Ron Hatley. Both are brilliant reads.

Posted by Stu on 16/04/13 at 08:53 AM

My mistake at #73, obviously in reference to Steve at #72. Just to further clarify the original landscape of the Midlands. The ‘park land’ of large trees at low stocking was maintained through constant burning. The understorey of the Midlands was dominated by grasses, supporting huge numbers of kangaroos. Trees and understorey shrubs would have been constantly sheding seed. Seedlings would have been emerging but browsing and regular burning ensured recruitment of trees and shrubs was relativly rare, maintaining an environment with a low stocking. When I drive down the midland highway I often think of what it would have been like before agriculture and the exclusion of regular fire.

Posted by Stu on 16/04/13 at 09:56 AM

Stu, can you explain or provide the wherewithal references to the Aboriginal Fire Management Codes, even your interstate colleague, Mark Poynter refers to these practices?
I have scanned the Internet using the 4 key words marked with capitals in the above, much of the resulting data available contains scientific assumptions only, nothing of catalogued fact.
The areas or sites used as a reference in each of these instances, were invariably all located in the dryer inland specific regions of Australia.

Thus today we read of this practice of ‘assumptions only’ and of its being used primarily for the purpose of its authors, to ‘imply’ the assumed components of specific Aboriginal Fire Management regimens.

In other words a sort of argy-bargy presumptive of what took place with the aboriginal people dwelling in the inner dry land regions, then we see where this has been then templated for use to proscribe this same methodology of Aboriginal Fire Management, to then commit that template to fit upon our Southern Australian Rain Forests.

The folly of the white man to academically fiddle with historical facts is not at all a singular event among the scientific community, often then after we see where they have inclined to their need to bolster or indeed exaggerate their claims, with the use of rather poorly presented and attended-to presumed historical fact.

Posted by William Boeder on 16/04/13 at 12:11 PM

#75 William, start by getting a copy of the books I refered to above. Read accounts by the earlest explorers. Have a look at the earliest paintings of the Midlands. Written accounts from James Cooks’ 1770 sigthings of the east coast refers to smoke from fires all over the place. Numerous places to get historical evidence. Look at what the aboriginals of northern Australia are still doing today. People such as myself and Mark aren’t making this up to suit our arguments, they are based on documented facts. Where facts are lacking, scientists have to make the best possible assumptions with the evidence at hand and new theories will be developed / refined as time goes on but it is evidence based.

Posted by Stu on 16/04/13 at 03:55 PM

#75 Just to clarify another point for you William. To suggest that historical Aboriginal fire use in dry forests is then used to prescribe fire in rainforests is incorrect and without basis. Where rainforests are selectively logged, fire is not used - in mixed forest to regenerate the eucalypt yes, but not rainforest. Some previously selectively logged rainforest sites have been converted to plantations and fire has been used to minimise windrows. However, conversion of rainforest on state forest stopped several years ago. The vast majority of this sort of conversion took place on private land, not state forest. This reference to conversion is a different argument and not at all related to the use of fire in dry forests.

Posted by Stu on 16/04/13 at 04:36 PM

“Look at what the aboriginals of northern Australia are still doing today.”

What exactly are they doing and, before you answer be careful that you are not talking about “vandals” as described to me by an aboriginal Northern Territory Fire Authority Supervisor?

Posted by John Wade on 16/04/13 at 06:26 PM

#78 John, my reference to Aboriginal burning in northern Australia is to highlight to people such as William that Aboriginal burning was/is practiced widely and regularly throughout many areas. Having been to Kakadu, the Gulf country and Cape York I’m aware of the issues. I’ve done a few stints as a volunteer for QLD PWS and spent time discussing ecological burning practices with numerous rangers and Aboriginal people, seen it going on and read quite a bit. Interesting walking through the escarpment country of Kakadu, without gaitors it would be torture due to the spinafex. The Aboriginals didn’t have gaitors and if it were me as an Aboriginal I would burn as I went to make moving through the country somewhat comfortable. Discussions with people I’ve met and my own experience is current fire regimes aren’t as frequent as they were prior to European influence. It’s my best guess based on what I’ve experienced. Maybe I’m wrong. There is a lot of research going on with significant input from Aboriginal people. Still lots to learn. Maybe your info has some truth to it. Whatever the truth may be, people such as William are obviously ignorant of the use of fire by Aboriginal people and the fire ecology of eucalypt forests.

Posted by Stu on 16/04/13 at 08:02 PM

We have aboriginal people in Tasmania.
As far as I know it is not them that are continuing traditions to burn our landscape (if this is correct) but white people.
They are practicing and handing down their traditions but no burning and no clear felling I notice.

Really though we need to wind the clock forward to this century where we have the science to say that smoke (PM2.5) is deadly. It can and does shorten lives.

Environmental laws/regulations/policy have been enacted to prevent smoke nuisance causing harm. There are no exemptions except for our TFS and when a fire permit is issued it is made well known that ‘conditions apply’.

Forestry cannot burn with impunity and they cannot harm others with their unnecessary toxic smoke.

Posted by Clive Stott on 17/04/13 at 12:00 AM

#74; Thanks for the explanation Stu. Basically then, the aborigines in the flatter forested parts of the State set grass fires going that burnt off the undergrowth without harming the larger trees. This encouraged the native grass and thus the game.
I do similar on my own property, with similar results. Every few years, burn the sag and fallen rubbish, then spend the next few years repairing fences to keep the hoppies out of the paddocks!
I can imagine over time this treatment would favour the larger trees and a fairly solid canopy would result.
What puzzles me is how this traditional burning can be used as an argument to support clear felling and intensive burning? It seems to me that high intensity burns would have been quite rare, certainly in the areas where such traditional burning took place. Of course, given the right conditions, where the canopies get going and the oil’s vapourising faster than the supply of oxygen, anything can happen, but fortunately that’s not a common event.
Stripping everything off, burning the residue and then sowing with the chosen mix of seeds can hardly be compared with anything in nature?

Posted by Steve on 17/04/13 at 05:38 PM

G’day Steve
Glad you have the picture of the Midlands in it’s original state. Only thing is a solid canopy wasn’t formed, the trees would have been a good distance apart on average. It wouldn’t have been a continuous canopy, sparse canopy would be a better description. However, this regular burning in dry forests isn’t used as an argument for clearfelling and burning to regenerate wet eucalypt forest. The Aboriginals didn’t live or burn in the wet forests, it was too thick and life far easier in the dry forests. Please hunt back through TT posts I’ve made in reference to the E.regnans forest of Mt Disappointment in Victoria. This will inform you about the fire ecology of wet euc forest.

Posted by Stu on 17/04/13 at 11:55 PM

Hi Steve #81
RE:#82 “The Aboriginals didn’t live or burn in the wet forests, it was too thick and life far easier in the dry forests”...

The fact is they once lived what was later called Logging Coupe DIP-21(c) Mawbanna in 1998/99.

Mar 13, 2002 –Murphy, Sen Shayne - Indeed, in two coupes which were harvested in the north-west in Mawbanna State Forest, Dip 21(c) and I think 21(a)— I cannot remember off the top of my head—which were mixed forest, primarily myrtle, there was a significant residue of logs…

Apr 29, 2003 – ... attention to a place that you and I are both familiar with, Paul: Mawbanna State Forest. Can you tell me what is growing in the coupe Dip 21(c) ...

Posted by Factfinder on 18/04/13 at 08:10 AM

#83 Factfinder, don’t distort the facts. The Aboriginals predominatly lived in the Sisters Hills / Rocky Cape area and other coastal areas of the NW on a pemanant basis. They did move inland on a seasonal basis to areas such as DP021C and further inland to places like Surrey Hills, perhaps even spent some time in the one location before moving on. However, all the evidence suggests they did not live in the wet forests on a permanant basis but moved through, predominantly along major water courses and ridgelines.

Posted by Stu on 18/04/13 at 09:10 AM

#79 stu. Thank you for your response to my assertions, however I note there was and were no other comments to this article that claimed that there were sterilization burns carried out in selectively logged forest coupes so that part of your statement was just a waste of space.

This William is not as ignorant as you seem to think, even our mate Blind Frederick knew of the burning of grasses in the inner dry land regions of the North of Australia.

Now Captain Cook and his officers and then the matelots aboard ship were not looking for regeneration burns from the deck of their ship, more than likely they noticed the cooking fires of which these aboriginal people were in the habit of doing all those years ago.
Now if you have researched correctly you will have noted that there are catalogued references going back to the 1939 bush-fires in Victoria whereby after these almost State-wide fearsome bush-fires there were a great number of new eucalypt trees planted (in their regimented rows to set in motion the new growth of a specifically selected eucalypt species, possibly Mountain Ash) post these devastating high intensive bush-fires.
Now this is hardly a sensible reason to slip into the Tasmanian forests as Robin and Mark the Mainlander claim, to just nip into the State’s forests splash a good dose of fire accelerans among the shrubbery then set the torch to these areas.

I now refer to the era post the 1962 Bush fires in Victoria, whereby the Forestry Commission began to observe the way nature itself began its regeneration of so many flora species. (so not just eucalyptus) over a given number of years these resultant eucalypts had regenerated themselves and fially grew into what I describe as reasonably marketable harvest-able saw-logs.
Among the lower canopy of these there was much of the lesser species of Native Flora that had also regenerated.
Another point I wish to add is that in the Murray Darling region of Victoria/NSW the regeneration of Eucalyptus is as contained in the below link,
nothing to do with fires whatsoever.
Regnanshttp://www.murrayriver.com.au/about-the-murray/river-red-gums/
The catalyst here that begins the regeneration of these species being periods of flood inundation, (nothing to do with Captain Cook and his Ship captain colleagues on other sailing vessels, nor anything to do with your you beaut regeneration burns.
Further, throughout the Mallee region in the North West of Victoria, the Mallee Scrub, post bushfires do not regenerate new species, they re-shoot from within their inner non-burnt skeletal remainder.

So here I have presented 2 examples that are way outside your pro-burning theories, (yes Victoria, no not Tasmania.)

Here’s a question for Robin, Mark the Mainlander and stu: how do the Forest species plant nurseries go about the production of new eucalypt plant-lings, (do they start ‘em all off by giving them a blast with a blow-torch, or) just provide a specific germination method that gives them their quantities of new stock?

From what you say Stu, continual burning changes the landscape….and don’t forget to add it generates millions of tonnes of toxic smoke every year.

Now why on earth would you advocate this unless it is for money?
The sad part is any profit made by FT is going to be swallowed up by Health now and down the track as a result of these unnecessary practices.